On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, [ISO-8859-1] G�rkan Seng�n wrote: > would be interested to see it in main, not just in "contrib".
Everyone would like to see the Ubuntu Font Family in 'main'. At this point in time, 'main' is sadly not an option because: (a) UFF comes with complete source [not just .ttfs], and (b) UFF requires a build-system that is not wholly in 'main'. > then it's contrib only... Uploading to 'contrib' would be the logical destination. I don't think there's anything blocking that? I'm happy to /help/ via pkg-fonts—but because I've been working closely on the Ubuntu Font Family and I am presented employed by Canonical I don't want to be seen to be actively forcing anything. From a Debian-perspective I absolutely want to see it in Debian and moving up the repos whenever possible. > to make the font really free? The full source code for the typeface is there, and everyone is free to modify, share, remix and improve it without any requirement to ask permission first or the possibility to be denied. (It is perfectly okay for the FTP masters to have found this to be non-DFSG free, that is the FTP masters' viewpoint). > what do you think are the chances for Ubuntu/Canonical At the point that a better libre font licence comes along, the Ubuntu Font Family can be relicensed. All of the necessary legal permissions to quickly perform such a relicensing are (intentionally) in-place: http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/FAQ.html I think it's been consistently stated, that the Ubuntu Font Licence-1.0 is being used as an *interim licence* solution. There are likely to be further revisions of the UFL, and also to other libre font licences, as the community and understanding of open font production expands. > They (Canonical, Ubuntu) after all mention the differences between > free software and other software. Font Software licensing has some unique requirements not found in other general-purpose software-, or content-licences (where GPL and CC-BY-SA are already clearly the preferred). There is a necessarity to allow embeding of the font in documents, without causing those documents to come under the same licensing conditions as the font. A font that cannot be /used/ by target users is not much use. Various of the available font licences try to cover the font-specific criteria in several ways: http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/FAQ.html#embedding For instance, the GPL+Font Exception approaches this via: "As a special exception, if you create a document … this font does not by itself cause the resulting document to be covered by the GNU General Public License" The second aspect is that a font-name field is a "well-known identifier/key" linking to a particular set of metrics (this is partially why we have the Liberation Fonts that Red Hat kindly sponsored). For instance, the SIL OFL approaches this via a "Reserved Name" method: "No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted" There was a keen desire to a find a way to incorporate both of the above aspects, and others, into a leen "single-page" licence, in a way that did have the burden on seeking prior permission. Nor was likely to be overly scary to existing font foundries. As of 18 months ago, no out-of-the-box, font-specific, widely-used licence was available. Canonical set about sponsoring various work in the area. The 'Ubuntu' in the UFL name is there to discourage its use until it's been debugged. The list of open bugs/comments for the UFL-1.0 is visible at: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-licence/+bugs The UFL-1.0 can't be changed, but work and advice is greatly sought for feeding into an UFL-1.1 and onwards; or functional equivalent. In the mean-time, the UFL-1.0 came about by looking for the closest starting point (SIL OFL 1.1) and making the minimum number of changes. For convenience, a colourful diff is available at: http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ofl-1.1-ufl-1.0.diff.html Yes, future relicensing is not only an option, but an intention. Yes, the meantime, I think 'contrib' would be a wondeful home. -Paul PS. I had another chat with Zack in Orlando about other methods of meeting a permissive, well-known name/Reserved Name criteria; Zack has been working issues around the DFSG and trademark compatibility, which may open up some options: http://www.debian-news.net/2011/11/12/bits-from-the-dpl-for-october-2011/ http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/10/msg00028.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
